Simple Man Politics

As you all know Simple Man Politics was supposed to be on a hiatus of sorts for two or three weeks in order to get some other business taken care of, but I just couldn’t resist writing about today’s topic. Today’s topic is about Ginsberg, the Supreme Court, and Obamas bankruptcy plan for Chrysler including its purchase by Fiat.

It appears that liberal SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is not on board with the Obama administrations game plan to reward the UAW (United Auto Workers Union) with 60% of Chrysler, while giving the American tax payer about 30% of Chrysler, and the secure lenders less than 20% of Chrysler.

The result of this bankruptcy deal would have given virtually all of the UAW its losses back. The American tax payers would have gotten about 60 to 70% of their money back, and the lenders would have gotten about 15% of their investment capitol back. This plan of Obamas is surely a payoff to the union and a grand screwing for the investors and the American tax payers who should be paid off above and before the union.

Apparently the three judge panel for the federal district that Ginsberg represents kicked it up to her for review refusing to make a decision on the bankruptcy deal forcing Ginsberg to take the lead in deciding the outcome of this sham of a bankruptcy At that point Ginsberg got the whole Supreme Court involved in the issue, which further threw a monkey wrench into the Obama bankruptcy deal.

It looks like the constitutionality of this bankruptcy mess is now going to be decided by the SCOTUS and hopefully the constitution will be upheld. This is obviously not very good for the Obama administration or the UAW who stand to financially gain an enormous amount of money for their support for Barack Obama in the 08 Presidential election. According to lawyers who practice constitutional law this bankruptcy is in fact unconstitutional and here is why.

In a normal bankruptcy case Chrysler would have been allowed to continue its operations while going through its restructuring process. Auto dealers would have been allowed to remain in business serving their communities in both sales and services, the secured lenders and bondholders would have been first in line to re-coupe their losses, and Last but not least all labor contracts with the UAW would have been null and void.

Unfortunately Obama in his infinite wisdom thought he should circumvent the constitution and do things the way he wanted to. As a result of his actions to force the Chrysler bankruptcy and Chrysler/Fiat deal through it found its way to a federal appeals court and then to the SCOTUS. Apparently 150+ years of bankruptcy law precedent and the US constitution still hold water even in light of the Obama administrations obvious contempt for them.

The decision that the SCOTUS makes on the Chrysler plan may ultimately affect the Bankruptcy deal that is currently in place for General Motors as well. The resulting decision may do great damage to the UAW, which personally doesn’t offend me one little bit. The decision could also result in both the tax payers and the lenders getting the bulk of their investments back, which I consider to be fair. The SCOTUS may also put an end to the Obama administrations plans on wealth distribution on a large scale, which I ma also in favor of.

Well that’s it for today folks and I am glad I was able to talk to all of you once again. I will be back again soon I hope so have a terrific day CIAO4NOW!!!!!

Hmmmm lets see what makes a good United States Supreme Court Justice? I’m sure there are lots of qualities that we can think of that would go into making an excellent Supreme Court Justice pick. We see a lot of these extraordinary qualities in many federal and state judges all around the country although Supreme Court Justices are generally chosen from the ranks of federal judges or those who have practiced before the Supreme Court.

I think the foremost quality I would look for in a Supreme Court Justice is someone with a razor sharp knowledge of the US Constitution; yep that’s a good start. Another excellent quality would be someone who is a constitutionalist who would strictly interpret the constitution and the laws that are governed by this invaluable document. I also think another excellent quality in a justice would be the ability to be an impartial observer as well as a fair justice who uses the US Constitution as his or hers only guideline for passing judgment.

Unfortunately these qualities are not always evident in justices to those who have an opinion that runs counter to that of a particular jurist. A large part of this problem exists on a purely ideological level considering some of the topics that the SCOTUS has to rule on with ever increasing frequency. Topics like Roe v Wade and the 2nd Amendment just to name a couple of those hot button issues off the top of my head.

Then of course there is the problem that is associated with political party partisanship. This problem inevitably occurs every time there is a Supreme Court Nomination to be made. If the President making the nomination is a Republican he attempts to seat a conservative justice and if he is a Democrat he attempts to seat a liberal justice. The reason for this of course is that he wants the justice he picks to have opinions similar to his own.

Of course with a Supreme Court Justice seat being a lifetime appointment these justices will influence the SCOTUS and its opinions for decades potentially. That is at the heart of what makes these nominations so vehemently contested especially by those whose party does not represent the sitting President. Of course the President and his party try to push their nominees through every bit as hard as those fighting against the nominee.

Some of the biggest battles in seating these nominees are trying to find one who does not believe that the SCOTUS should legislate from the bench because they are the Judicial Branch and not the Legislative Branch of our government. Another big battle and the one that is currently brewing in the nomination process is the battle against racism on the bench.

At this time in our history our current President has had a chance to nominate a replacement for sitting Justice David Souter with another whose judicial views are similar to or maybe even more liberal than Souter’s and this nominees name is Sonia Sotomayor a Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and the first Hispanic female to ever be nominated although not the first Hispanic nominated.

The current battle against her nomination stems from her statement supporting policy making from the SCOTUS by saying that policy is made all of the time on the appeals level. Another battle being waged against her nomination is because of an apparent racist statement that she made in which she said that a Latina female justice would make better judicial decisions than a white male justice because they would be unable to relate to the regular people who are the ones that the SCOTUS is supposed to protect. As always the battle against judicial activism will be fought on this nomination.

Now I will be honest with you and tell you that I would not support her for the simple reason that I fervently disagree with her notion that government policy is made on any federal judicial bench whether it be in federal circuit court, federal appeals court, or the SCOTUS. No justices are sworn in as legislators they are sworn in as judges or justices. As for the Latina female versus white male statement it may be racism in reverse and is certainly ignorant at the least.

As always I will tell you that it is up to you to do your own research and decide what you believe about this nominee. And as always all I can do is tell you the facts as I know them and my very educated opinion on the topics I write about. I hope all of you do take the time to read the things I write and decide if you like the direction our country is moving in and if it is where you want to go.

I hope you all have a fantastic day and I will see you all again tomorrow CIAO4NOW!!!!!